Talk:An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in Marxist scholar Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, he insists that all three volumes of Das Kapital need to be read to understand Marx? Source: "Heinrich insists throughout the text that a reading of Capital that does not include volumes 2 and 3 will lead necessarily to misinterpretation: 'What we believe to be understood after reading only the first volume is not only incomplete, but in fact distorted' (9)." https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2013.795263
  • ALT1: ... that when Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was published, Paul Cockshott claimed Heinrich removed the scientific method from Marx? "In a nutshell, my objection to Heinrich's interpretation is that, if we follow it, we end up with something that is no longer a scientific theory of capitalism, whereas a slightly different interpretation gives a strong and testable scientific theory." https://doi.org/10.1080/03017605.2013.805004 (posting the doi for proof of peer review-- non-paywalled link available here: https://marxismocritico.com/2016/05/24/new-age-marxism/)
  • ALT2:... that in Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, he argues that Marx rejected economics? Within world view Marxism, Marx had taken over key categories, if not the whole, of the labour theory of value from classical political economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and added to that an explanation of exploitation and the crisis-prone nature of capitalism. Thus, according to this view, 'there are no fundamental categorical differences between Marxist political economy and classical political economy, only differences concerning the conclusions of both theories' (p 33). According to the 'new reading of Marx' that Heinrich subscribes to, this is a faulty understanding of what Marx was attempting to do in Capital. This is highlighted by the subtitle of the book: 'A Critique of Political Economy.' Marx was not trying to provide an alternative political economy, but wanted to 'criticize the categorical presuppositions' of political economy. This is the key difference and can be emphasised by noting that Marx was not 'predominantly criticizing the conclusions of political economy, but rather the manner in which it poses questions' (p 34)" pages 26-7 of https://www.jstor.org/stable/24482457
  • ALT3:... that in Marxist scholar Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, he claims to solve the transformation problem? "Heinrich's claim is ultimately that Marx's labour theory of value is a monetary theory of value: 'without the value form, commodities cannot be related to one another as values, and only with the money form does an adequate form of value exist' (63–4). It is a compelling reading, and one with which Heinrich can also sidestep the infamous 'Transformation Problem' that plagued Capital's reception since its first printing. He essentially calls the entire problem a category error: he insists there is no point trying to derive production prices from values, because value and price are 'different levels of description' (149), mediated by different forms of exchange."
  • ALT4:... that according to Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, Marx opposed the labor theory of value? Source is same quote as ALT2 and supplemented directly from Heinrich: "Marx's value theory is a monetary theory of value...However, within traditional Marxism, a non-monetary theory of value was dominant..." (page 165 of the book)
  • ALT5: ... that Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was widely adopted in German universities? "Backhaus’s ideas of the special logical character of Marx’s analysis have been preserved and further developed in Germany, especially in the work of Michael Heinrich. His interpretation of Capital is quite influential, since the standard work used by the German Capital reading groups is his Kritik der politischen Ökonomie Eine Einführung. The book is now into its tenth printing, and is also used widely in the German universities." from https://brill.com/display/title/21786
  • ALT6: ... that Marxist scholar Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was praised for discussing all three volumes of Das Kapital? "In addition to depth and clarity, what I find most noteworthy about the book is that it offers a systematic introduction to all the three volumes of Capital. Many commentary pieces—both articles and books—on Marx's critique of political economy refer to Volume I. References to Volumes II and III are, if at all, unsystematic and fragmentary...By engaging with all the three volumes of Capital in a systematic manner, Heinrich presents a comprehensive account of Marx's work on political economy." from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24482457

• • Reviewed:

Created by Freedom4U (talk). Self-nominated at 08:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will be reviewing this. WJ94 (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - A minor point, but you have a couple of quotations with more than one reference after them, making it unclear where the quotation comes from. Could you somehow rearrange the text to avoid this?

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting: - I'm not sure the hook is catchy - I don't think its surprising to a general reader that someone would think that you need to read an entire work in order to understand it (even acknowledging that this is not often done for Capital).

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is long enough, new enough, neutral, and well sourced - I think you've done a good job with this article. If you could find a more interesting hook (does Heinrich have an unusual take on Marx, or an intriguing comment from one of the book's reviewers?) that'd really help. WJ94 (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• @WJ94: You just challenged an unchallenged view I've had which was that most people who read Capital Volume 1 don't read Volumes 2 or 3, and maybe it doesn't have as much basis as I thought. I've added an alternative DYK which talks about Cockshott claiming Heinrich's interpretation made Marx unscientific. Also made it so that the citations pointed out exactly what belonged to what. Freedom4U (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Freedom4U: Thanks for that. My point was not so much that most people do read volumes 2 and 3, but more than for a general audience who might be unfamiliar with Marx, it is perhaps not surprising that a commentator on Marx advocates reading all three volumes. I have some reservations with ALT1 - specifically, I'm a little nervous about using a negative comment about the work where the source is the person who made that comment. I think we'd be on safer ground with a hook based on one of Heinrich's claims in the book. There might be something in the critique of worldview Marxism, or the idea of critiquing both Marxism and bourgeois readings of Marx? WJ94 (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• @WJ94: Thanks for your critique. Your comment about it being for a "general audience" got me thinking and I've added three more alternatives. Yeah, was iffy about the Cockshott one too-- what he's trying to say is that Heinrich's interpretation of Marx can't be "empirically proven" or something along those lines. Freedom4U (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Freedom4U: Great, thanks for those alternatives. I think ALT3 probably requires too much contextual knowledge for the general reader, but I like the other two. I have slightly modified ALT2 to remove the final clause (which I think reduces the clarity of an otherwise good hook) - I hope you don't mind. But I am happy to approve ALT2 and ALT4. WJ94 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• @WJ94: Yup sounds good, thanks! Freedom4U (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: Ambitious. Nice work so far, but I'm afraid your hooks don't really link up enough to the article text – you're still assuming too much knowledge on the part of the reader to be able to draw the same conclusions you are drawing in the (approved) hooks. (Quite frankly, to me it feels like there's quite a jump in logic as well – in both hooks.) Could you please take a look again at the article itself – and try to make it a bit more accessible to someone who isn't necessarily that familiar with Marx or with basic concepts in political economy? And then sync up the hooks and/or propose new ones as well? Cc: WJ94 Cielquiparle (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Revisiting this after taking a step back, I can see your point. I've altered the article slightly so that hook 2 is clearly mentioned in the article, and I've struck down hook 4 as I think it may be difficult for it to have integrity with the article without being WP:OR. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: Thanks for updating. The connection between the remaining hook and the article is clearer...but now it seems clear that the hook is misleading! Is the author really saying Marx was not an economist? At all? Like the hook seems to say? Cielquiparle (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: I've updated the hook to match— also expanded the article quite a bit. I've also added an uncontroversial but plain hook 5, and hook 6 which is a rewording of the original hook to make it more interesting. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look at this, Cielquiparle. I have updated the section in the article on Marx's relation to economics to more closely match the source. Might I suggest the following hook which I think is interesting and more closely matches the article (and the underlying source):

• ALT7: ... that Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital claims that Marx was more interested in criticizing existing economic thought than providing his own theory?

WJ94 (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• @WJ94 and Freedom4U: Thanks both. I'm liking ALT7. How about another word for "providing", like "building" or "constructing" ...? You could also use "argues" rather than "claims". Cielquiparle (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Cielquiparle and WJ94: Hmmm, not a fan of ALT7 as that isn't what the article states/what is stated in the sources. Marx is providing his own theory, but the distinction is that his theory is not a political economy. Suggesting the following alternative:

• ALT8 ... that Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital argues that Marx was critiquing the field of political economy itself?

lmk what you think! :3 F4U (they/it) 14:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Could we resolve that by adding a "just" to the hook? For example:

• ALT9: ... that Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital argues that Marx was more interested in criticizing existing economic thought than just constructing his own theory?

WJ94 (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• @WJ94: I'm really sorry that this is dragging on so long, but that reads awkwardly and isn't completely accurate. What Heinrich is bringing up is that Marx's critique of political economy was the basis of his work. He's not criticizing those before him and separately bringing up a new theory, but rather his critiques of those before him is his theory (or at least plays a fundamental role in it). Consider:
• ALT10 ... Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital argues that Marx was interested in critiquing the fundamentals of political economy?

or potentially could use the word 'contested'

• ALT11 ... Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital argues that Marx contested the fundamentals of political economy?

lmk how you feel about this! :3 F4U (they/it) 19:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How about:

• ALT10a ... Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital argues that Marx was critiquing the underlying assumptions of political economy?

Cielquiparle (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Works for me! :3 F4U (they/it) 01:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about this and I want to suggest that

• ALT6a ... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was praised discussing the three volumes of Karl Marx's Capital?

might be a better hook. It's basically a rephrased version of my original hook, but unlike the original, phrasing it this way makes it interesting to a common audience. I think the idea that a book was praised for discussing something that's in its title raises more questions and interest than ALT10a and its derivatives would. It's also more concise. :3 F4U (they/it) 03:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: I think I see what you mean now (and it is an important point, like in the Adam Smith universe telling people to read the part about "fellow feeling"). ALT6a is better than ALT0, but it still needs more work, because it's too pat – I think a lot of people would read it and shrug, rather than feeling compelled to find out why and click. There may even be room to be extra clever here and write a quirky hook (the closing hook in the DYK set that is often offbeat or humorous). So if you really want to go down this route, it may be worth getting out the crayons to try out some creative alternatives until we hit on the right one. Just to get things rolling, here are some variations (none of which seem particularly funny but are shorter the way hooks generally are)...

• ALT6b... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital is considered unusual for discussing all three volumes?
• ALT6c... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital is considered unusual for discussing all three?
• ALT6d... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital is considered unusual for discussing Volumes II and III?
• ALT6e... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital is considered unusual for covering Volumes II and III?
• ALT6f... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital is considered unusual for going beyond the first one?
• ALT6g... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital is considered unusual for going beyond the first?

Cielquiparle (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

(FYI, you used ALT6d twice so I've edited your comment to remove that mistake, I hope that's alright with you) @Cielquiparle: I think ALT6c, coincidentally the shortest, is the most interesting among those hooks with ALT6b being second place. ALT6f-g don't read well and are hard to understand on first read. I feel ALT6d-e make it more difficult to realize what the tension being created is. Here are some variations of ALT6c I've made to keep it going:

• ALT6h... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital is considered abnormal for discussing all three?
• ALT6i... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital strangely discussed all three?
• ALT6j... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital unexpectedly discussed all three?
• ALT6k ... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was deemed unusual for discussing all three?
• ALT6l ... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was considered atypical for discussing all three?

:3 F4U (they/it) 07:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

OK so ALT6i and ALT6j don't work because it sounds awkward in wikivoice (i.e., why would Wikipedia express an opinion on what was strange or unexpected)? Also struck ALTh because "abnormal" sounds odd. I am liking the past tense that you introduced in ALT6k and ALT6l (especially given that Heinrich is now widely adopted in Germany and somewhat old hat). So below is an update to ALT6c which you liked in past tense, one with the word "engaging" from Basu, plus a few more using a different approach:

• ALT6m ... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was considered unusual for discussing all three?
• ALT6n ... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was considered unusual for engaging with all three?
• ALT12 ... that Michael Heinrich's 2004 book on Karl Marx's Capital was praised for introducing all three volumes? Link feels way too long for the text it contains :3 F4U (they/it) 11:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• ALT13 ... that Michael Heinrich introduced all three volumes of Karl Marx's Capital in a separate book?
• ALT13a ... that Michael Heinrich introduced all three volumes of Karl Marx's Capital in his own book?
• ALT13b ... that in 2004, Michael Heinrich introduced all three volumes of Karl Marx's Capital in his own book?

Over to you. (Not sure if you saw the review in Contemporary Sociology via JSTOR, but that review has some interesting quotables as well. But tabling that for now to keep it simple.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

(It's already in the article (Sica 2012)-- I would state that German and English-language Marx literature is different, and the book had already become a staple in Germany when it was first translated into English. Basu is speaking of the English context, and shouldn't be considered an authority on Marx literature in other languages) @Cielquiparle: ALT13 and its derivatives don't feel interesting... A hook that amounts to stating that a book exists I feel isn't hook-y. What about quoting Basu, to state:

• ALT14 ... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was considered "noteworthy" for discussing all three?

or could "considered" be removed for:

• ALT14a ... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was "noteworthy" for discussing all three?

or potentially:

• ALT15 ... that Michael Heinrich's Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was considered unusual for introducing the three volumes of Karl Marx's Capital?

All of the ALT6s could work better if "discuss"/"engage"/etc were replaced with "introduces"/"introducing" as that makes it more absurd. Off-topic, but just realized and found it funny that the premise of this joke is only possible in English since the German title is Critique of Political Economy: An Introduction :3 F4U (they/it) 09:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Point taken re: ALT13 derivatives, but I would point you to the February 2023 DYK stats page – do a search for "Encyclopedia" or "Encyclopedia (novel)" and see the hook there. Oddly simple and tempting to dismiss, but I would argue that the number of pageviews is much higher than one might expect for what it is. (Anyway one thing that jumped out in the review from Contemporary Sociology was the comment about Heinrich's use of simple arithmetic to make Marx more accessible to novices.)

• ALT14b ... the book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was called "noteworthy" for discussing all three?

I am liking ALT15 more and more but I confess I had to read it several times before I got the "joke". Re: ALT14 and derivatives, for all of our splitting hairs over this, in the end, the proofreaders may end up removing the quotation marks around "noteworthy" and in general the pendulum is swinging against putting things in scare quotes without some additional contextualization, unless it's the quirky hook (i.e., not sure if ALT14a would survive, but I am leaving it). Anyway if you click around the DYK stats pages section in general, it may give you more ideas for what people have done with book titles and other rather wordy article titles. Or, if you think we're done and want a reviewer to review the ALT hooks, that's fine too. Just make sure you add the word "noteworthy" to the right place in the actual article ASAP before you forget. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: On second thought, I don't think there's an appropriate way to fit "noteworthy" into the article, so I've struck those out. I've stretched out the hyperlink and I think that puts extra emphasis on the fact that words are being repeated.

• ALT15a ... that An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was considered unusual for introducing the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital? "Heinrich insists throughout the text that a reading of Capital that does not include volumes 2 and 3 will lead necessarily to misinterpretation: 'What we believe to be understood after reading only the first volume is not only incomplete, but in fact distorted' (9). This is one way in which the text stands out from the field of recent offerings." in https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2013.795263 and "In addition to depth and clarity, what I find most noteworthy about the book under review is that it offers a systematic introduction to all the three volumes of Capital. Many commentary pieces--both articles and books--on Marx's critique of political economy refer to Volume I. References to Volumes II and III are, if at all, unsystematic and fragmentary. As a result, they offer only an incomplete picture of Marx's work." https://www.jstor.org/stable/24482457

Regarding Encyclopedia, I think there were some obvious reasons it did quite well (A novel being an encyclopedia is quite strange, and then you realize that it's a novel that's titled Encyclopedia, but no wait, its a novel that's titled Encyclopedia that is an encyclopedia! All while being hosted on an encyclopedia... Like the article was just interesting on its own so it didn't need much more than a plain hook) :3 F4U (they/it) 10:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

OHHHHHHHH I've just figured out what you were trying to do in ALT13, I didn't realize you were trying to do the double meaning of introduce and introduce (publish). Given it took me this long to realize by myself, I still don't think its that engaging. :3 F4U (they/it) 11:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

ALT15a could work. Here's one last try from me, I'm happy to call it quits soon:

• ALT16 ... that despite its popularity in Germany, An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was not translated into English until 2012?

("Wait, when was the introduction first published in Germany then?" [CLICK.]) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like another mild hook, I'd be fine with any of the ones that haven't been striked through, though I would prefer 15a for the quirkiness. Pleasure working with you @Cielquiparle: :3 F4U (they/it) 12:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Would you be so kind as to approve the hook for me? Cheers! :3 F4U (they/it) 13:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Approving remaining hooks, would recommend choosing between ALT15a, ALT15, ALT6m, or ALT6l. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

This should be a fun one to review. I must confess to not having read Capital cover to cover (not even Volume I!); I have background knowledge but not of NML specifically.

In my view, there are some substantial issues at present: the short length; technicality; and the low weight given to views other than Heinrich's. On the other hand, strengths including the referencing and formatting, accuracy of grammar/wording and use of media.

I've written an FA on a book about Marx for laypeople, Why Marx Was Right. Different topics and authors lead to different styles, but I do think that article is worth consulting. The following are my major review suggestions that need to be implemented or resolved through discussion:

• I'd like to know some context to the book – this one depends on whether sources exist. But some of these questions might be answerable: what is Heinrich's specialism and where was he working when he wrote this? Is he known to write for laypeople? What inspired this book—did he see it as timely or Capital as uniquely important to understand (I know the English 2012 preface answers this somewhat)?
• Some of the "Summary" assumes a lot of prerequisite knowledge or introduces ideas not made clear through quotes. This could be addressed within the section or in some "Background"/"Context" section. Issues include:
  • What "worldview Marxism" is. Marxism–Leninism? Interpretations of Marxist economics that build off classical economics? All non-NML viewpoints? Rather than quoting Heinrich, it may be better to paraphrase what things characterise "worldview Marxism" (e.g. "a historical view that society progresses through sequential modes of production").
  • Explanation of the field/scholars that Marx was critiquing (like Smith, who proposed a labour theory of value).
  • What is the transformation problem (and is this problem something that can't be answered by Marx or Marxist interpretations like "worldview Marxism")?
  • What is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? What is its significance to those who agree with it? Heinrich believes it is "a symptom" of what?
  • The section covers what is contentious about Heinrich's view, but presumably much of the book is about concepts like means of production, class struggle, surplus value and other ideas universal to interpretations of Marx. (What does Heinrich think, if anything, are fundamental issues with capitalism and does he think communism is a solution?)
• The Reception section needs a lot of expansion. There are plenty of references, but more detail is needed. I want to understand what reviewers said on: is Heinrich's interpretation correct? Are his arguments clear and logical? Are there factual errors or omissions? Is the book well-written and accessible to laypeople?

Some smaller comments:

• "... aiming to introduce the three volumes of ..." – Repetition of the title can be avoided (except the words "Marx" and "Capital", so they can be linked).
• It's not neutral to call Capital Marx's "magnum opus" (not that I disagree).
• "draws on the Grundrisse and Theories of Surplus Value" – Some brief explanation of what these are, like "the manuscripts on economics Grundrisse ..." would add context.
• "has been praised for its objective treatment of Marx" – "objective" in what sense? Generally opinions like this need attribution in prose ("has been praised by John Doe of Marxism Monthly"), as well as citations.

Thanks for your work on this article so far and I look forward to discussing it further! It's formally on hold for a week but I can extend the period if active progress is being made. — Bilorv (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Response

@Bilorv: Damn I wrote a paragraph or two and then my laptop crashed! 🙃 Here's attempt number two:

• Context/Background - There's there interviews with Heinrich out there where he discusses the development of the book. I wasn't sure how much I was able to rely on primary sources so I left them out, but the only real way that a "Background" section can be added atm is if I'm allowed to incorporate those sources.
• Worldview Marxism -  Done I've elaborated on the description in the article. Again, I'm unsure as to how much I can rely on primary sources (in this case the book itself), to describe the book.
• Explanation of Smith/classical economics - Again, I'm wary about potentially stepping across the border into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but I'll try to expand in the next few days.
• Transformation problem -  Done
• TRPF - Not done yet, will expand.
• Summary - Repeating what I've stated, but the stuff I've incorporated into the summary section are the parts of the book that have been discussed by secondary sources. If you could issue some guidance on this, it would be very helpful.
• Reception - The number of references are the result of the book being only briefly mentioned. Cockshott, Basu, DiLeo, Sica, and Paulson are the five people who've published works where the book is the primary subject of the work. Holloway and Fuchs, on the other hand, only briefly mention the book. I'll try to expand on Cockshott's critique, but there's nothing more to say regarding Fuchs and Holloway.
• Smaller comments -  Done I've addressed your concerns regarding repetition and the word "objective". I've removed "mangum opus" for now from the article text, but I'm confused as to why you state that saying so is not "neutral". That Capital is Marx's magnum opus is not the subject of any dispute or debate I'm aware of and seems to be broad consensus among both academic and nonacademic sources.

Thank you for the review and I would really appreciate your guidance regarding how much information I can incorporate from primary sources. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: the book itself is completely fine as a primary source for describing the synopsis, and generally does not need to be cited explicitly. This is common to book synopses, film and TV plots and so forth. It is also not OR/SYNTH to provide standard definitions from the field or uncontested historical facts.

It seems to me that there is plenty of material for Reception. Fuchs, for instance, has several key ideas on Heinrich: he criticises that Heinrich "deceives the readers"; he says the issue with a monetary theory of value is that it "assumes that no exploitation takes place if a commodity is not sold"; and he contrasts Fornäs to Heinrich on the TRPF. Other sources have much more detail. If Heinrich's monetary theory of value is given space in the article (and it should be!) then Fuchs' counter-argument should get some space too, for neutrality. What I did on Why Marx Was Right might have been overdoing it, but I think at least a paragraph on each of the four questions I suggested above (or some other recurring themes in reviews) seems easily achievable.

On magnum opus: it seems to me like the phrase implies value judgement.

(By the way, the ping didn't go through as you didn't add a signature in the same edit as linking to my userpage.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: do you have an estimated timeframe from addressing these comments? If it will not be possible to make major progress in the next few days, it may be wiser to improve the article outside of the GA process and then resubmit. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll be able to get some major work done on Saturday, if that's okay with you. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I'll try to take a look on Sunday then. — Bilorv (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I noticed the work being done on Sunday and gave it a bit longer, but at 17 days into the "on hold" period I will be giving a final assessment and passing/failing accordingly. — Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In this edit I've made some wording changes; the prose is of GA quality.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All sourcing is high-quality, with academic sources that have respected publishers and peer review processes.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I have done spotchecks on the sources I can access, with no issues found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	With expansion this is now within the GA category of "broad", though Reception and the general article length is on the shorter side.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	All material is pertinent context.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Heinrich's view is explained clearly and placed into wider context.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	NFCCP are met for the standard use of the book cover in the infobox; the free image is appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant and sufficient images.
	7. Overall assessment.	It's a pass for GA. — Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)